(See#2913↑ ["I'm a mathematician, and some (not only one) of my teachers have liked to pretend they are completely stupid, to force me to explain everything in every minor detail of my answers."] and #2915↑ ["They may be important, but I simply cannot respond to them if I'm unable to make sense of them. So, as my teachers of mathematics have told me, explain it slowly, slowly, as if I'm completely stupid."] It's an inside joke, and easy to miss.)​

You know.. the stuff that is required to form a theory....
Have you any science to support your model?

Click to expand...

But if you think you are seeing repetition, and wonder about it, this would suffice:
Because unopposed repetition is how they win.
And because you and others apparently need it - this, in particular, seems to go missing otherwise:

And in this case, ignorance about the US Republican Party and its President. Because this isn't really about climate change - this is about denial of the existence of problems that can be handled only by government. If climate change did not require competent governmental response, including the restriction of capitalist corporate business and taxation of the wealthy, thereby threatening the Republican regime, none of this wingnut crap would be happening.

But if you think you are seeing repetition, and wonder about it, this would suffice:
Because unopposed repetition is how they win.
And because you and others apparently need it - this, in particular, seems to go missing otherwise:

It's the thread relevance.

Click to expand...

well, as far as I am concerned, until Schmelzer produces the science to support his acclimatization theory/model there really isn't anything more to discuss about it.

And in this case, ignorance about the US Republican Party and its President. Because this isn't really about climate change - this is about denial of the existence of problems that can only be handled by government.

Click to expand...

What has to be expected from our "left-libertarian". Climate change is the propaganda tool to justify world government. All the simple local reactions I mentioned do not need government.

I'm going to regret responding to a complete propagandist, but the entire Bering Sea is about to shift to an Atlantic mode of mixing and salinity, altering a large and vital fishing ground for the first time in observable history. You can choose to be as alarmed as you want, but things are changing rapidly, and such ecosystem changes are usually behind the collapse of many historical civilizations, to say nothing of species, which are disappearing at a rate also unprecedented in human history. Why does anyone bother to respond to a guy that's 40 years behind current science?

Click to expand...

I have not claimed that such things will not happen. I have not made claims about the timescale of these changes which differ from mainstream IPCC claims. You have not given any evidence for a disagreement between my position and the actual scientific one.

Perhaps not... but it is your responsibility to support your "Global Climate Change" acclimatization theory with current scientific evidence and stats.

Click to expand...

I do not claim to have a theory. I simply apply common sense to the climate hysteria. There is no difference between IPCC and what I use, so no new climate model involved. I simply use the basic rules of plausible reasoning, in particular, the zero hypothesis. So, what you see or know about the small scale you will see again in the averages, so, higher temperature, more precipitation, and more CO2 are good for plant growth. There will be no conspiracy of the good soil regions so that if you estimate the average of the shift of climate zones, zones, where the soil is better in the new region, will approximately compensate those where it is worse. The same holds essentially for all other factors which can influence the results. And more plants and animals are good in the average, even if some of them are bad. All this is nothing but everyday plausible reasoning.

To explain it to you as if you were stupid, at some point you should break form and accidentally get something right.

Click to expand...

Given that to "get something right" has to be understood as to agree with the majority here, no. I'm quite comfortable if my considerations are in agreement with common sense as well as scientific results. And, given how fast my opponents start to switch from arguments about the content to personal attacks - which is the sure sign that they have lost the debate about the content - I see no problem.
And even if one starts to present me as insane - that's nothing new or horrible for me, I have read underground publications about dissidents in Soviet psychiatry already in Russia during the Brezhnev time. Political dissidents were declared schizophrenic at that time. Here we have some variant:

Relational Interpersonal Psychosis:
Over the years I have observed a number of members that appear to be locked into constant non-productive discussion that goes no where and will never go any where simply because they fail to acknowledge that a relational psychosis is present, as if they are feeling compelled with little to no ability to stop, and continue an inexplicable futility.

Click to expand...

Of course, most of the internet communication in forums or social media is highly problematic. In the 90's I was quite optimistic that in uncensored public communication on the net the truth will finally win. Those unable to defend their points with arguments were, at that time, unable to dominate discussions, they wrote a few insults and then disappeared. The longest "discussion" I had with someone who simply wrote insults, while I replied in a civilized way, were 20 or so post, the typical one in the 1-4 range. This has changed. I think the main reason is that at that time all those in the net were essentially programmers sitting in universities. Whatever, today indeed most discussions show a low culture, a low intellectual level, and are otherwise problematic. But I don't think this problem would be accurately described by terms psychosis.

The subject is sufficiently interesting to me. And I'm in general always interested in arguments which question my own position. But there is also the moral issue - to fight against lies, in particular here against Western propaganda lies.

Initially, I hoped for scientific discussions, in particular about my theories. But as a forum to discuss physics it is essentially dead. During that initial time, I found some other discussions quite interesting, and initially, some discussions appeared quite interesting. But this also degenerated.

So... when ever there is an over emphasis on "I" you know you have a problem.

Click to expand...

I'm an individual anarchist. To make my own decisions, different from those of my environment, is part of my nature. I was, for example, the only boy in my class who did not smoke and drink alcohol. Without any emphasis, I did not even try to promote this, I simply decided that this is better for me, and my friends had to accept such differences (and they did).

Is such individualism a problem? Not for me. I'm comfortable with being a lonely thinker. Then, I have no problems with participating in groups, I love soccer (a team game) and high mountain tourism, where cooperation in the group is essential, and people with a problematic ego would be a large problem. Those with a problematic ego are those who depend on the admiration of others or other support of their ego from others.

But in a discussion, teamwork does not matter at all. What counts are arguments. And I argue only where I disagree, so the other becomes automatically an opponent. This may become problematic if this opposition becomes emotional hatred. And therefore it is very important to argue about the content, not about persons.

So, the job of the alarmists is quite simple - to forget about the positive sides.

Click to expand...

Science predicts the changes will be more negative than positive. Species extinction, invasive species, habitat loss, overfishing, overpopulation, rising ocean temperature, salinity change, fire, water shortage, coral die-offs... The positive effects are few and won't compensate, largely pushed by political considerations. Climate change isn't neutral to humanity. When you call science alarmist, you imply there is no reason to be alarmed, and that's a lie.

And then you deny calling it propaganda, when someone points out that such ignorant blundering inevitably leads to error - and provides examples, such as your fantasy of wrongway political and economic pressure on climate researchers, or your assumption that lack of positive news indicates pro-AGW alarmism.

Climate change is the propaganda tool to justify world government. All the simple local reactions I mentioned do not need government.

Click to expand...

AGW is not propaganda. It is the likely reality as established by research and discovery, by the science you claim to accept. Meanwhile: All the local reactions you mentioned are complex, expensive, partial mitigations, and require government - not world government, of course, but competent government. Fascism won't work. Recognizing this on some level, Republicans in the US are still denying the basic physical situation, apparently in part because they cannot handle the governance involved.

They can't tax the wealthy and powerful, or curb abusive industry, or manage "natural" disasters. So if they acknowledge the necessity of doing those things, they are immediately in an untenable position.

Knowing that the last time CO 2 levels were this high, sea levels were over 100 feet higher than they are today is indeed alarming yes? (I can't recall the name of the age involved but will look for it if needed.)

Thank you, nice example to illustrate some points I have made earlier: In big fat letters in the title:As CO2 increases, rice loses B vitamins and other nutrients
and inside the article itself, in one line: "Two bright spots: Vitamin B6 levels remained unchanged and vitamin E increased." (Here, the emphasis is mine.) This is the pattern I have described as characteristic for scientific literature under public pressure, namely that the title gives the politically correct picture, while the unwanted part of the truth can be found inside, in small print.

It is some "science news", so, naming this "mass market" is slightly misleading. It is the popular science market, so, between the mass market and scientific literature. So, according to my theory, you have to expect there a higher truth content.

Knowing that the last time CO 2 levels were this high, sea levels were over 100 feet higher than they are today is indeed alarming yes? (I can't recall the name of the age involved but will look for it if needed.)

Click to expand...

I would like to know a little bit more before becoming alarmed. I have seen myself shells in the Sahara, thus, I know that it was, in some past, sea. For whatever reasons. It is a cheap job for an alarmist to look up the CO2 records together with the sea level records, as far as they are accessible to science, and to take out the most impressive data point to impress the sheeple.

Science predicts the changes will be more negative than positive. Species extinction, invasive species, habitat loss, overfishing, overpopulation, rising ocean temperature, salinity change, fire, water shortage, coral die-offs... The positive effects are few and won't compensate, largely pushed by political considerations. Climate change isn't neutral to humanity. When you call science alarmist, you imply there is no reason to be alarmed, and that's a lie.

Click to expand...

Because you say so? Species extinction, habitat loss, overfishing, overpopulation are well-known problems even without any warming. Do they become more serious? For the alarmists, of course. For science? Who knows? If you know, present the evidence. Water shortage and fire when an increase in precipitation is predicted? Nice try, but not really plausible. Salinity change in water which is anyway salty - good or bad? Who knows? Of course, you know, it is very bad. I do not call science alarmist. The only people I have named alarmists are those who claim that IPCC is wrong and the horrors of warming are even greater.

I would like to know a little bit more before becoming alarmed. I have seen myself shells in the Sahara, thus, I know that it was, in some past, sea. For whatever reasons. It is a cheap job for an alarmist to look up the CO2 records together with the sea level records, as far as they are accessible to science, and to take out the most impressive data point to impress the sheeple.

This is the pattern I have described as characteristic for scientific literature under public pressure, namely that the title gives the politically correct picture, while the unwanted part of the truth can be found inside, in small print.

Click to expand...

The main result was given as the main result, the minor and less certain and inconsequential results were also included, accurately presented as minor and less certain and less consequential.
They were included in print of exactly the same size.
And that was mass market, not "scientific literature". Note the missing citations and data and methods etc.

Your fantasies of suppression are quite bizarre. Where do you suppose you got the idea that no change in B6 plus a small increase in Vitamin E (both of which depend on total yield held even etc, which the central and significant finding of loss of major nutrients does not) would come anywhere near balancing a substantial loss of most B Vitamins and a variety of other nutrients? That such minor and less consequential auxiliary findings would deserve equal emphasis in media headlines?

So, according to my theory, you have to expect there a higher truth content.

Click to expand...

And in the actual literature, a politically neutral and accurate account is indicated by this media report. That would be the assumption of reason - anybody's theory.

So no bias at all is visible in this report, except possibly (and I would not regard this as bias, even though the effect is the same) a small false reassurance in the positive news. The actual visible potential of biased effect was in the opposite direction of your assessment, in other words.
(Why false? It was not corrected for total yield as expected from other research, not corrected for storage and stability problems and metabolic utilization in the one or two nutrients that were not adversely affected, and so forth. One could possibly get the impression that with extra CO2 and AGW one would be likely to obtain extra Vitamin E, and that is almost certainly not the case. But the report was of that one study only, so that limitation seems unbiased to me).

In economy, fascism is simply corporatism, thus, the same economic system as almost everywhere

Click to expand...

That is badly confused.
In the first place, fascism's economic basis is corporate capitalism - not corporatism generally.
Then: One can have corporatism without capitalism.
One can have capitalism without corporatism.
One can have corporate capitalism without fascism.

That last is common - some hold it to be a necessity of liberty and freedom in an industrial age. I do not, but admit its apparent association. One of the dangers of corporate capitalism is that is the economic system of fascism - one is a step closer automatically. But as there is political oppression to go with every economic setup, that is not a rejection.

Republican (Trump, fascist) government in the US is not necessary, not inevitable, regardless of the economic setup. The money and the power are not the same thing. This is a political movement, this Republican takeover of the US government.

I have seen myself shells in the Sahara, thus, I know that it was, in some past, sea.

Click to expand...

In 1990 I was exploring a bit of desert in central Australia ( a few thousand ks from the sea), just off the main high way and noted sea shells and other fossils. It was then I started to realize the sheer scale of what the world was facing. That was 1990. 28 years ago. Learning to live with the reality of it all has been somewhat ...uhm... challenging for sure. You know..."Prepare for the worst but hope for the best".

Strangely reminiscent of that story in the Bible.... Noah's Ark ( Genesis - flood) where by only Noah believed the world was in really deep shit and faced scorn and ridicule for daring to warn people. Problem is the rise in sea level will be around a hell of a lot longer than 40 days....
It is even more ironic that all those street people standing on street corners with signs saying "The end is nigh" being accused of nut-hood turn out to be right.
I wonder how many are standing on corners today being ridiculed?

There was a joke published recently in the news paper,

"So what? I don't know what Armageddon means.... it's not the end of the world is it?"